The First Amendment serves as a watchdog for government misconduct.

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: February 16, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------


** TRI Warns Police Not to Retaliate Against Citizens Who Exercise Their Constitutional Right to Record Police in Public
------------------------------------------------------------

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — Pointing out that a significant number of police officers across the country fail to understand or recognize the First Amendment rights of citizens, The Rutherford Institute has issued a warning to police not to retaliate against citizens who exercise their constitutional right to peacefully observe and record police officers in the performance of their duties ([link removed]) in public.

The Institute’s letter ([link removed]) to the San Francisco Police Commission comes in response to its proposed policy regarding the rights of onlookers ([link removed]) to record police activities.

“Citizens who exercise their First Amendment right to film police in public serve as watchdog reminders to police that as public servants, they are accountable to ‘we the people.’ Moreover, Americans should be able to record their interactions with police without fear of arrest, assault or being subjected to harassment or intimidation tactics.” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “The ability to record police interactions in public provides for greater accountability when it comes to police interactions with the citizenry and should be preserved as a necessary right of the people.”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

Most incidents of police brutality that attain national attention are brought to light by videos filmed on smart phones. Consequently, as more attention has been paid to the prevalence of police brutality, more Americans have begun filming the police in their daily interactions. Unfortunately, in those instances when police are averse to the notion of being recorded, it can result in retaliation, brutality and even false charges for those daring to exercise their First Amendment rights in such a way. For example, police in New Hampshire seized a woman’s camera and charged her with criminal offenses for disobeying a police officer, obstructing a government official, and unlawful interception of oral communications in retaliation for simply videotaping a police officer at a traffic stop from at least thirty feet away in a parking lot. A police officer in Colorado stood in front of a YouTube journalist to intentionally block his camera view of a DUI traffic stop, shined a flashlight into his
camera, drove his police cruiser at the journalist, and repeatedly blasted his air horn. In both instances, the courts found that the filming of police was clearly established First Amendment activity and that the police were therefore not protected from liability under qualified immunity.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet specifically ruled on a case involving the rights of individuals to record police activities, a growing number of federal appeals courts have upheld the right to record police since 2011. In Irizarry v. Yehia, although the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that it had not yet specifically recognized a First Amendment right to film the police, it found that the right was nonetheless clearly established “beyond debate” by every circuit which had considered the issue—pointing out and summarizing cases from the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. While the right to film the police is protected by the First Amendment, the courts have noted that the right is not unqualified and may be limited by “time, place, and manner restrictions.” These restrictions, however, must be “narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.” In other words, citizens’ efforts to record the police must not
interfere with police in carrying out their duties. However, police who retaliate against individuals for lawfully recording them can also be charged with violating the First Amendment.

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Ftri-warns-police-citizens-who-exercise-their-right-to-record-police-in-public-should-not-be-subjected-to-retaliation Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Ftri-warns-police-citizens-who-exercise-their-right-to-record-police-in-public-should-not-be-subjected-to-retaliation)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2023 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])